Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PurpleGaga27

Windows 9 in 2015? And for free?

Recommended Posts

The good news recently, Apple MacOS X along with Google's Android OS, Chrome OS, and other OSs are free to get and download, but Microsoft Windows since the 1970s has yet to have a free OS of its own. Do not think that Windows 1.0 through Windows 98 are free to get and download. The only free Windows OS (that I know of) is Virtual Windows XP for users who already owned Windows 7.

 

Source 1: http://www.zdnet.com/windows-9-price-and-microsofts-innovators-dilemma-7000025053/

Source 2: http://www.cruxialcio.com/microsoft-reveal-windows-9-april-3448

Source 3: http://www.geek.com/microsoft/windows-9-arrives-in-2015-announcement-due-this-april-at-build-1582001/

 

Well at least the Start Menu button will be back. Windows 8 was a catastrophic flop for PC gaming with one restriction, leaving PC gamers unable to get Direct X 11.2 on their Windows 7 PCs regardless of their video cards.

 

 

Edit: My current high rig cannot install any other OS (other than Windows) due to my CPU's restrictions unless I buy a new custom PC with a fourth generation of the Intel Core i7 and higher in order to get Intel Virtualization Technology and other features enabled (and they're hardware based).

Edited by zocom7

Share this post


Link to post

CPU restrictions? Nowadays every up-to-date OS have proper instructions for any CPU. They're all the same. The only difference is in API, but most of modern OS' handle latest CPU units. Not only Windows. The only problem might be with proprietary drivers. Those from Nvidia works good enough on Linux and other systems, while AMD... better not to mention at all.

 

What concerns gossip 'bout free Windows 9 - i frankly doubt it. The company which runs since mid 70's and still didn't freed abandoned / outdated Windows versions, won't give up and agree, that their policy of selling proprietary software was wrong for last 40 years. It's just impossible. Even new CEO won't do that even if the stock analysts would force him. Still the most popular Windows is XP. Mostly by companies which don't see a reason to upgrade their Windows, while XP is working fine for last 14 years... and Micro$oft can't even force them to migrate to their latest Windows 8.1, so they extended the support for XP for one year extra. It looks like they have no idea how to sell their software any longer.

In 90's Windows was popular, because of it "innovation" and "multitasking" (first multi-task OS was Workbench for Commodore system in... 1985!). Nowadays there is no visual difference between Mint (most popular Linux distribution), Windows and OSX. Why customer should pay 199$ for an OS which has a "support" for 10 years, while there is on market OSX which sells upgrade for free, like Linux?

 

Nevertheless, we'll see how it ends...

Edited by Traymen

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, XP support is ending in April. The only thing not ending is Microsoft branded malware updates. Hotfixes and the like, as I recall, are still ending in a few months. XP is a dinosaur of an operating system and it needs to go away now. It has no security and no good features. It's awful for gamers (like me) since DX10 and 11 don't run on it. The 64-bit XP is a joke and normal XP can't use more than the usual 3.2 GB of RAM. There's no reason to continue using XP.

 

Eitherway, Microsoft will dominate the market because their operating systems are still actually good. People complained about Windows 8 but that was just people being stupid. If you take five minutes, it's not that hard. 8.1 at least 'fixed' what was wrong anyway so people have no real reason to continue with their stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post

There's no reason to continue using XP.

Unless it accomplishes everything you need.

 

I don't use XP anymore, but it was a good operating system, and sometimes upgrading is completely unnecessary. However, people who do refuse to upgrade have no right to complain if their operating system isn't compatible with newer programs, and cannot expect Microsoft to keep holding their hands and maintaining their computers for them.

Share this post


Link to post

I still use Windows XP due to memory conservation and speed (probably will be very speedy on an octa-core CPU), and Windows 7 is a memory and speed hog. Old programs I still use (including going to the Internet) still works very well and fast on XP and I will continue in that way until they're no longer usable. It's no wonder why even recent versions of Firefox, Chrome, Norton and ZoneAlarm still use a lot of memory even on a Win XP 32-bit machine.

 

For example, Fallout Tactics does not have a loading delay/pause on save games and quick saves in Win XP but Win 7 does.

Share this post


Link to post

Unless it accomplishes everything you need.

 

I don't use XP anymore, but it was a good operating system, and sometimes upgrading is completely unnecessary. However, people who do refuse to upgrade have no right to complain if their operating system isn't compatible with newer programs, and cannot expect Microsoft to keep holding their hands and maintaining their computers for them.

Right after a new OS release, I totally agree that upgrading is a bit unnecessary but after all of the bugs have been worked out, a service pack has been released and the old OS is about to stop being supported and is behind on technology, it's time to leave it behind. Therefore, an upgrade becomes necessary to maintain stability and security. The latter of which, XP has none to speak of.

 

I still use Windows XP due to memory conservation and speed (probably will be very speedy on an octa-core CPU), and Windows 7 is a memory and speed hog. Old programs I still use (including going to the Internet) still works very well and fast on XP and I will continue in that way until they're no longer usable. It's no wonder why even recent versions of Firefox, Chrome, Norton and ZoneAlarm still use a lot of memory even on a Win XP 32-bit machine.

 

For example, Fallout Tactics does not have a loading delay/pause on save games and quick saves in Win XP but Win 7 does.

Conserving memory is a bad thing. If you have the memory, you might as well be able to use it. XP isn't even that fast; it just doesn't have all that much going on. That's like saying Windows 98 is lighting fast. Of course it is, but that doesn't make it good in today's world.

 

Matter of fact, the reason that Firefox, Chrome, Norton (why are you even using this) and ZoneAlarm (or this) take more resources is that modern towers and laptops coming off the shelf have more damn resources. The problem isn't the change in software, it's your refusal to upgrade and stay current. Want fewer bugs in your software? Stop trying to cling to 12 year old operating systems.

Share this post


Link to post

Right after a new OS release, I totally agree that upgrading is a bit unnecessary but after all of the bugs have been worked out, a service pack has been released and the old OS is about to stop being supported and is behind on technology, it's time to leave it behind.

I disagree, partially anyway. Up until about a year or two ago, I had a laptop with Windows 98 on it. It accomplished everything I used it for and it was absolutely unnecessary to upgrade. The part where I agree with you is when internet usage comes into play; I did not use that computer on the internet. For any computer that is frequently online, an antique operating system isn't a good idea.

 

Norton (why are you even using this)

I honestly don't understand why so many people still use Norton. If Norton was a compass and you used it to navigate a forest, it would point at every tree you passed.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree, partially anyway. Up until about a year or two ago, I had a laptop with Windows 98 on it. It accomplished everything I used it for and it was absolutely unnecessary to upgrade. The part where I agree with you is when internet usage comes into play; I did not use that computer on the internet. For any computer that is frequently online, an antique operating system isn't a good idea.

Okay, well, there's that but it wasn't general use and seems to be specific for a purpose. I meant for general purpose, including Internet use, clinging to an old operating system is pretty much a bad idea. When XP support ends, I don't want to be stuck with Zero Day exploits until I quit using it. That's the biggest problem with using XP after the support lifecycle ends. You'll be a hack magnet.

Share this post


Link to post

When XP support ends, I don't want to be stuck with Zero Day exploits until I quit using it. That's the biggest problem with using XP after the support lifecycle ends.

 

However, even if you buy a XP after "deadline", you'll still need to activate it - even when, you won't be able to update it. I don't see a point of such policy.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't update? What the hell are you talking about? I can still update Windows 98 and Windows ME. XP will be able to get updates for a long, long time after the support lifecycle ends.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't update? What the hell are you talking about? I can still update Windows 98 and Windows ME. XP will be able to get updates for a long, long time after the support lifecycle ends.

 

You can't. Microsoft shut down their servers.

Share this post


Link to post

If they pulled the servers, it was really recent. I was tinkering with Windows 98 a few months ago and I was still able to get updates for it.

Share this post


Link to post

If they pulled the servers, it was really recent. I was tinkering with Windows 98 a few months ago and I was still able to get updates for it.

Right after release of Windows 8, Microsoft decided to close update for outdated systems... they thought, that people would migrate to "eight" faster if they force them to do it.

Share this post


Link to post

I did this after the release of Windows 8. I'll see what it does when I get home and can access my virtual machines.

 

[EDIT] It tries to work but it gets stuck in an endless loop. If IE8 ran on W98, it would work fine. It wasn't disabled for the OS, just the browser version.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Right after release of Windows 8, Microsoft decided to close update for outdated systems... they thought, that people would migrate to "eight" faster if they force them to do it.

 

 

They probably shut it down due the cost for maintaining it.

 

I did this after the release of Windows 8. I'll see what it does when I get home and can access my virtual machines.

 

[EDIT] It tries to work but it gets stuck in an endless loop. If IE8 ran on W98, it would work fine. It wasn't disabled for the OS, just the browser version.

 

No, they really removed it from their servers. I can't access it anymore, even with the corporate Windows update.

Share this post


Link to post

If it wasn't there, I would get a connection error. I don't get a connection error, just a redirect loop. The servers are still there but unaccessible due to 98 running a seriously outdated browser. I mean, I can't say I blame Microsoft for that. Windows 98 has long since lost its usefulness and 'forcing' people away from something that old is by no means unreasonable. I don't see why people are still clinging to XP. It's slowing becoming the next Windows 98. Great for its time, but is long since past the genuine lifespan it should have. I mean, I can do more with Windows 7 and 8 than I can in XP... I mean, the Superbar > anything XP offers.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×